I do not lie and am not paid by Rupert Murdoch to lie. You have not identified in your tweet a single example of an alleged lie, which suggests you simply made up this defamatory claim.

Indeed, you were so reckless with the facts that your tweet links to an obvious parody Twitter account run by one of my critics which you have clearly believed is mine.

Your other link is to the website of a warmist journalist who for years was a Murdoch columnist, too, writing on climate change. Was he, too, paid by “villainous” Rupert Murdoch to “lie to public”?

I’ve since learned that you last year retweeted another defamatory comment: “No other media organisation in any other civilised nation would employ #AndrewBolt as a journalist”.

As it turns out, that, too, is incorrect. I am not only employed by News Corp but by Australia’s Network 10 and Macquarie Radio Network, where I host a weekly television show and co-host a daily radio show respectively. I have also appeared as a commentator on other media outlets, including the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Al Jazeera, the BBC and Canadian radio stations. I am very confident I would be able to find work as a journalist in another “civilised nation”.

I note this because repeated defamations under Australia’s law is evidence of malice – and your history of defaming me shows a complete disregard for the facts.

It is appalling that you could be so reckless, so spiteful, so destructive and so ill-informed. I have long doubted the rigor and the conclusions of your work as a climate scientist and often deplored the way you conduct debate, but even I had never before today considered publically calling you a liar.

I demand you delete your tweet and issue a public apology on the same Twitter account within 24 hours. Failure to do so will not only cast doubt on your commitment to truth in debates on global warming, but expose you to legal action.

Mann did offer the classic leftist liberal tactic of the cleverly worded non apology. Once the darling of the IPCC now left to late night drunk tweeting. Dr. Mann a little advice. Don’t piss off those who buy ink by the barrel.

The future of skiing and snowboarding in Scotland appeared bleak last night after two of the country's five ski resorts were put up for sale after large financial losses.The owners of Glencoe and Glenshee put the resorts on the market yesterday morning after deciding they could no longer afford to keep them open.

Mild winters and lack of snow in recent years have left the winter sports industry north of the border reeling. Scotland's other three ski areas are also struggling to keep afloat.

With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years. The perilous state of finances in the remaining resorts may reduce even that estimate.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A HIGHLAND snowports resort which enjoyed its busiest day in a decade this week has unveiled plans to “ski into summer” if conditions allow.

Earlier in the week Iain Sykes, the founder of Nevis Range Ski Resort claimed that the resort had more snow than ever in the history of skiing there.

The resort has now recorded snow fall for 59 consecutive days.

The snow cover was described as “wall-to-wall”. Average snow depths are thought to be 1.6 metres on the lower slopes, 4.5 metres on the upper slopes, with some deep gully areas estimated as being over 18m (58 ft) deep. (More than 5 stories deep!)

The resort was not even able to operate all of its lifts at the weekend because some lifts are still buried under the unprecedented amounts of snow.

Managing director Marian Austin said: “All of our staff have been working very hard in difficult conditions and the hill team have been digging out the lifts on the upper mountain almost on a daily basis

One of the features of Skeptical Science that makes our content robust is our internal "SkS-review" system. Before any blog posts and rebuttals are published, they are critiqued and reviewed by the SkS team. This process identifies and filters out scientific inaccuracies as well as works on communicating the science more clearly and simply.

The Skeptical Science team is a diverse group of scientists and laypeople scattered all over the globe. Their expertise covers climate science, social science, environmental science, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry. If you want to peruse the scholarly papers published by the SkS team, check out the Google Scholar profiles of some of our team members:

The purpose of Skeptical Science is straightforward: we debunk climate misinformation with peer-reviewed science.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

It is guys like Milton Banana who have delayed meaningful reductions in emissions pollution and sustainable use of resources, to the point of this>>>>>>>viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24402

The Skeptical Science team is a diverse group of scientists and laypeople scattered all over the globe. Their expertise covers climate science, social science, environmental science, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry. If you want to peruse the scholarly papers published by the SkS team, check out the Google Scholar profiles of some of our team members:

The Troposphere warming slower than forecast doesn't necessarily disprove AGW, but it may show that the oceans are more efficient at absorbing heat than modeled. Probably as some form of natural variability from the PDO. Sea Level has rose faster than projected over the last 20 or so years, so the overestimated warming at the surface can be explained by the underestimated rise in Sea Level.

It is guys like Milton Banana who have delayed meaningful reductions in emissions pollution and sustainable use of resources, to the point of this>>>>>>>viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24402

The Skeptical Science team is a diverse group of scientists and laypeople scattered all over the globe. Their expertise covers climate science, social science, environmental science, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry. If you want to peruse the scholarly papers published by the SkS team, check out the Google Scholar profiles of some of our team members:

Worldwide? That is a pitifully small number of scientists considering U.S. academic institutions awarded 48,802 research doctorate degrees in 2008 alone. I count 334 names which would be only 0.684% of one years worth of doctorates in the US.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Thus, that's one of the reasons I feel sensitivity is on the lower end of the 1.5-4.5 Degree C consensus. I'd hedge it at between 1.5-2.5 Degrees C. However, Sea Level may rise faster than projected over the 21st Century.

There are clear guidelines published by NOAA as to how these stations are to be properly set up. Here is the link again. The photo of this station clearly violates station guidelines. I would think the reason these guidelines were decided upon was to insure as clear as possible data collection.

Why decide upon and issue guidelines for proper station installation, and then ignore them and later fashion a bias correction? How can one correction do for many different stations with many different variables? Would this correction work for the station photographed above the same as the station in California placed on a roof top? Or the station placed next to hot AC exhaust? Or the station placed next to a brick building, or the one right next to an asphalt parking lot? It would be impossible. A bias correction for a temperature reading? Only in the minds of the federal government.

But, I've noticed a curious similarity. Satellites for measuring temperature fall out of calibration from simple orbital decay. Another data bias technique to solve an unforeseen problem? Or an opportunity? Problems with ground and satellite temperature data. Two completely different methods. A bias correction is employed that achieves the same end. Making things purposefully difficult to muddy the waters?

There are clear guidelines published by NOAA as to how these stations are to be properly set up. Here is the link again. The photo of this station clearly violates station guidelines. I would think the reason these guidelines were decided upon was to insure as clear as possible data collection.

Why decide upon and issue guidelines for proper station installation, and then ignore them and later fashion a bias correction? How can one correction do for many different stations with many different variables? Would this correction work for the station photographed above the same as the station in California placed on a roof top? Or the station placed next to hot AC exhaust? Or the station placed next to a brick building, or the one right next to an asphalt parking lot? It would be impossible. A bias correction for a temperature reading? Only in the minds of the federal government.

But, I've noticed a curious similarity. Satellites for measuring temperature fall out of calibration from simple orbital decay. Another data bias technique to solve an unforeseen problem? Or an opportunity? Problems with ground and satellite temperature data. Two completely different methods. A bias correction is employed that achieves the same end. Making things purposefully difficult to muddy the waters?

If one looks at the length of data from some of these sites one will see that many of the "violations" most probably were added to the site after the establishment of the station. Also, the guidelines were not established until much later in the program's history.

The comparison of the data for the rural stations with no issues to the urban stations where there is supposedly an uncorrectable issue showed a higher trend for the rural stations, which means the data for the probelm stations are most likely being over corrected.

Satellites do fall out of calibration, just like ANY electronic measurement system will do over time, but reading that string of mercury thermometers dangling down from it would be a real bear. Perhaps the true problem with the so-called skeptical camp is their distrust of science in general. That would explain things about some of them more completely. Such as those who cannot comprehend the power of mathematics and averages of large set of numbers to offset minor measurement issues.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

One, how do you explain studies like Kinnard et al. which show an unprecedented decline in Arctic Sea Ice relative to the last 1,450 years?

How do explain how the Earth continues to remain in a positive energy imbalance despite the very low solar activity, as evidenced by continued heat content increase and sea level rise? Heat Content increase has been well documented by Levitus et al. and Murphy et al. The continued rise in Sea Level while solar activity has been in a slump has been documented by Church et al.

I'm also assuming that you believe the ECS to be below typical accepted values of 1.5-4.5 K? If so, how do you explain the large fluctuations in paleoclimate? Such large fluctuations with that low of a sensitivity would need a huge forcing, much larger than known orbital forcing, a forcing that has not been documented.

Germany’s Energiewende and renewable feed-in act are often touted as huge, jobs-creating success stories. But as the prices for electricity skyrocket into the stratosphere and renewable energy companies bite the dust all over Europe, it’s turning out that the green jobs wonder is nothing short of a fraud - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/15/germ ... 7gsLA.dpuf

Fence sitters one more example of what Europe is doing to create energy poverty.